Total Posts:41|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

New Arguments Against God

wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2010 10:27:11 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
This is one that I came up with on the fly in another thread and some have had their own criticisms of it, so I thought I'd give it its own thread.

Argument from Divine Hiddenness
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. I cannot see any god anywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.

Argument from Empty Space
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. Nothing is in empty space.
4. Empty space exists.
.: God isn't everywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.

Argument from My Conception of God
1. If a god exists, then:
-It requires the worship of human beings.
-It has the power to make itself known.
2. Something has to be known to be recognized.
.: If a god exists, then it would have made itself known.
3. I do not know god.
.: God doesn't exist.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2010 10:33:06 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/7/2010 10:27:11 PM, wjmelements wrote:
This is one that I came up with on the fly in another thread and some have had their own criticisms of it, so I thought I'd give it its own thread.

Argument from Divine Hiddenness
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. I cannot see any god anywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.

Electrons... you can observe only their effects.

so... this doesn't DISPROVE god as possible... at most (if "sees" is taken in a loose meaning) it means there's no reason to believe in god.

Argument from Empty Space
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. Nothing is in empty space.
4. Empty space exists.
.: God isn't everywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.

prove God's soul stuff's not in empty space.

Granted... there's no reason to believe in soul stuff... but again doesn't make god impossible.... just makes the argument go into soul stuff.

Argument from My Conception of God
1. If a god exists, then:
-It requires the worship of human beings.
?
-It has the power to make itself known.
2. Something has to be known to be recognized.
.: If a god exists, then it would have made itself known.
3. I do not know god.
.: God doesn't exist.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2010 10:37:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/7/2010 10:33:06 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/7/2010 10:27:11 PM, wjmelements wrote:
This is one that I came up with on the fly in another thread and some have had their own criticisms of it, so I thought I'd give it its own thread.

Argument from Divine Hiddenness
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. I cannot see any god anywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.

Electrons... you can observe only their effects.

Theoretically, we can only observe the effects of everything. I observe photons reflecting from my desk. I cannot observe the desk itself. Moot point.

so... this doesn't DISPROVE god as possible... at most (if "sees" is taken in a loose meaning) it means there's no reason to believe in god.

He should be everywhere. I should be able to see him anywhere I look.

Argument from Empty Space
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. Nothing is in empty space.
4. Empty space exists.
.: God isn't everywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.

prove God's soul stuff's not in empty space.

Nothing is in empty space. It exists between electrons and the nuclei of atoms. We've used electron microscopes and we've found no god.

Granted... there's no reason to believe in soul stuff... but again doesn't make god impossible.... just makes the argument go into soul stuff.

Occam's Razor. It doesn't exist.

Argument from My Conception of God
1. If a god exists, then:
-It requires the worship of human beings.
?

God is a narcissist. It needs our recognition to be satisfied. Following your ideology, that's why he created us.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2010 10:41:13 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/7/2010 10:37:17 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Granted... there's no reason to believe in soul stuff... but again doesn't make god impossible.... just makes the argument go into soul stuff.

Occam's Razor. It doesn't exist.

mmm... I thought Occam's razor was a method of determining what we should prolly affirm/treat as being the case... Not what IS.

Argument from My Conception of God
1. If a god exists, then:
-It requires the worship of human beings.
?

God is a narcissist. It needs our recognition to be satisfied. Following your ideology, that's why he created us.

what is my ideology?
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Mason0612
Posts: 160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2010 10:41:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/7/2010 10:27:11 PM, wjmelements wrote:
This is one that I came up with on the fly in another thread and some have had their own criticisms of it, so I thought I'd give it its own thread.

Argument from Divine Hiddenness
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. I cannot see any god anywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.

Argument from Empty Space
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. Nothing is in empty space.
4. Empty space exists.
.: God isn't everywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.

Argument from My Conception of God
1. If a god exists, then:
-It requires the worship of human beings.
-It has the power to make itself known.
2. Something has to be known to be recognized.
.: If a god exists, then it would have made itself known.
3. I do not know god.
.: God doesn't exist.

Although I agree with the notion that there is no God, I'm not sure I agree with the reasons you gave. If there actually was a God, then he would be so complex and powerful, he could break laws of physics. He could be in space if he is almighty God.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2010 10:43:29 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/7/2010 10:41:36 PM, Mason0612 wrote:
At 8/7/2010 10:27:11 PM, wjmelements wrote:
This is one that I came up with on the fly in another thread and some have had their own criticisms of it, so I thought I'd give it its own thread.

Argument from Divine Hiddenness
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. I cannot see any god anywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.

Argument from Empty Space
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. Nothing is in empty space.
4. Empty space exists.
.: God isn't everywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.

Argument from My Conception of God
1. If a god exists, then:
-It requires the worship of human beings.
-It has the power to make itself known.
2. Something has to be known to be recognized.
.: If a god exists, then it would have made itself known.
3. I do not know god.
.: God doesn't exist.

Although I agree with the notion that there is no God, I'm not sure I agree with the reasons you gave.
http://www.debate.org...
If there actually was a God, then he would be so complex and powerful, he could break laws of physics. He could be in space if he is almighty God.
Logic is. It cannot be broken.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2010 10:44:24 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/7/2010 10:41:13 PM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/7/2010 10:37:17 PM, wjmelements wrote:
Granted... there's no reason to believe in soul stuff... but again doesn't make god impossible.... just makes the argument go into soul stuff.

Occam's Razor. It doesn't exist.

mmm... I thought Occam's razor was a method of determining what we should prolly affirm/treat as being the case... Not what IS.

There's certainly no reason to believe it.

Argument from My Conception of God
1. If a god exists, then:
-It requires the worship of human beings.
?

God is a narcissist. It needs our recognition to be satisfied. Following your ideology, that's why he created us.

what is my ideology?
http://www.debate.org...
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
GeoLaureate8
Posts: 12,252
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2010 10:44:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/7/2010 10:27:11 PM, wjmelements wrote:
This is one that I came up with on the fly in another thread and some have had their own criticisms of it, so I thought I'd give it its own thread.

Argument from Divine Hiddenness
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. I cannot see any god anywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.

Argument from Empty Space
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. Nothing is in empty space.
4. Empty space exists.
.: God isn't everywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.

Argument from My Conception of God
1. If a god exists, then:
-It requires the worship of human beings.
-It has the power to make itself known.
2. Something has to be known to be recognized.
.: If a god exists, then it would have made itself known.
3. I do not know god.
.: God doesn't exist.

I know that you are making a parody of my thread and arguments, but the first two are pretty good ones actually, lol.
"We must raise the standard of the Old, free, decentralized, and strictly limited Republic."
-- Murray Rothbard

"The worst thing that can happen to a good cause is, not to be skillfully attacked, but to be ineptly defended."
-- Frederic Bastiat
Mason0612
Posts: 160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2010 10:46:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/7/2010 10:43:29 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/7/2010 10:41:36 PM, Mason0612 wrote:
At 8/7/2010 10:27:11 PM, wjmelements wrote:
This is one that I came up with on the fly in another thread and some have had their own criticisms of it, so I thought I'd give it its own thread.

Argument from Divine Hiddenness
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. I cannot see any god anywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.

Argument from Empty Space
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. Nothing is in empty space.
4. Empty space exists.
.: God isn't everywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.

Argument from My Conception of God
1. If a god exists, then:
-It requires the worship of human beings.
-It has the power to make itself known.
2. Something has to be known to be recognized.
.: If a god exists, then it would have made itself known.
3. I do not know god.
.: God doesn't exist.

Although I agree with the notion that there is no God, I'm not sure I agree with the reasons you gave.
http://www.debate.org...
If there actually was a God, then he would be so complex and powerful, he could break laws of physics. He could be in space if he is almighty God.
Logic is. It cannot be broken.

The concept of God is:

1. the reason for existence
3. all powerful
4. all knowing

If he is in fact all of these things, then it would be very easy for him to break logic. Why he would, I don't know. I find religion confusing.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2010 10:50:04 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/7/2010 10:46:45 PM, Mason0612 wrote:
The concept of God is:

1. the reason for existence
3. all powerful
4. all knowing

If he is in fact all of these things, then it would be very easy for him to break logic. Why he would, I don't know. I find religion confusing.

Once you throw logic out the door, the concept of god becomes irrelevant.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2010 10:50:50 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/7/2010 10:50:04 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/7/2010 10:46:45 PM, Mason0612 wrote:
The concept of God is:

1. the reason for existence
3. all powerful
4. all knowing

If he is in fact all of these things, then it would be very easy for him to break logic. Why he would, I don't know. I find religion confusing.

Once you throw logic out the door, the concept of god becomes irrelevant.

Agreed. The concept of God is illogical and outdated.
Mason0612
Posts: 160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2010 10:53:38 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/7/2010 10:50:04 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/7/2010 10:46:45 PM, Mason0612 wrote:
The concept of God is:

1. the reason for existence
3. all powerful
4. all knowing

If he is in fact all of these things, then it would be very easy for him to break logic. Why he would, I don't know. I find religion confusing.

Once you throw logic out the door, the concept of god becomes irrelevant.

Agreed. And the only reason most people have a religion is from their upbringing, so there was never a logical reason to begin with, haha.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2010 11:04:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/7/2010 10:53:38 PM, Mason0612 wrote:
At 8/7/2010 10:50:04 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/7/2010 10:46:45 PM, Mason0612 wrote:
The concept of God is:

1. the reason for existence
3. all powerful
4. all knowing

If he is in fact all of these things, then it would be very easy for him to break logic. Why he would, I don't know. I find religion confusing.

Once you throw logic out the door, the concept of god becomes irrelevant.

Agreed. And the only reason most people have a religion is from their upbringing, so there was never a logical reason to begin with, haha.

If they had been more in India they would've been Hindus, too. Kind of makes it all seem silly that if God exists *HER* "true religion" would be so geographically and culturally condensed.

Almost, makes the concept of religion seem....man-made... :P

Good thing I shed the yokes of religion.

aThEiSm rOx!
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2010 11:09:40 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/7/2010 11:04:40 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/7/2010 10:53:38 PM, Mason0612 wrote:
At 8/7/2010 10:50:04 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/7/2010 10:46:45 PM, Mason0612 wrote:
The concept of God is:

1. the reason for existence
3. all powerful
4. all knowing

If he is in fact all of these things, then it would be very easy for him to break logic. Why he would, I don't know. I find religion confusing.

Once you throw logic out the door, the concept of god becomes irrelevant.

Agreed. And the only reason most people have a religion is from their upbringing, so there was never a logical reason to begin with, haha.

If they had been more in India they would've been Hindus, too. Kind of makes it all seem silly that if God exists *HER* "true religion" would be so geographically and culturally condensed.

Almost, makes the concept of religion seem....man-made... :P

Good thing I shed the yokes of religion.

aThEiSm rOx!

Yea. People can't even agree on which god to worship and they don't even have any evidence to support the existence of their god. It's al false.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2010 11:19:15 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/7/2010 11:09:40 PM, InsertNameHere wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:04:40 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/7/2010 10:53:38 PM, Mason0612 wrote:
At 8/7/2010 10:50:04 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/7/2010 10:46:45 PM, Mason0612 wrote:
The concept of God is:

1. the reason for existence
3. all powerful
4. all knowing

If he is in fact all of these things, then it would be very easy for him to break logic. Why he would, I don't know. I find religion confusing.

Once you throw logic out the door, the concept of god becomes irrelevant.

Agreed. And the only reason most people have a religion is from their upbringing, so there was never a logical reason to begin with, haha.

If they had been more in India they would've been Hindus, too. Kind of makes it all seem silly that if God exists *HER* "true religion" would be so geographically and culturally condensed.

Almost, makes the concept of religion seem....man-made... :P

Good thing I shed the yokes of religion.

aThEiSm rOx!

Yea. People can't even agree on which god to worship and they don't even have any evidence to support the existence of their god. It's al false.

I see you have been touched his noodly appendage. You down to eat some pasta?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2010 11:20:16 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/7/2010 11:19:15 PM, popculturepooka wrote:

I see you have been touched his noodly appendage. You down to eat some pasta?

Yes! Pasta is yummy! :D <3
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2010 11:30:37 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/7/2010 10:27:11 PM, wjmelements wrote:
This is one that I came up with on the fly in another thread and some have had their own criticisms of it, so I thought I'd give it its own thread.

Argument from Divine Hiddenness
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. I cannot see any god anywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.

This has been discredited.
1: Not all monotheistic religions claim that God is omnipresent.
2: There is a difference between omnipresence and pantheism.
3: Firstly the fact that you can not see God does not mean he is not there. I am surrounded by billions of bacteria, I can't see them either. Secondly you can not be certain that you are not currently looking directly at God.


Argument from Empty Space
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. Nothing is in empty space.
4. Empty space exists.
.: God isn't everywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.

Rebuttals 1 and 2 still apply.

3: Empty space is full of stuff. So not really an argument at all.


Argument from My Conception of God
1. If a god exists, then:
-It requires the worship of human beings.
-It has the power to make itself known.
2. Something has to be known to be recognized.
.: If a god exists, then it would have made itself known.
3. I do not know god.
.: God doesn't exist.

This is entirely arbitary.
You assume that it requires the worship of human beings, you assume it has the power to make itself known. What are these assumptions based on? I can conceive of deities where neither of these claims hold. This fails to contradict the mainstream view of the Judaeo-Christian God, it fails to contradict the deist God, it fails to contradict the gnostic God.

I know I am an atheist but these arguments against the existence of God are not logically sound.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2010 11:37:44 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/7/2010 11:30:37 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/7/2010 10:27:11 PM, wjmelements wrote:
This is one that I came up with on the fly in another thread and some have had their own criticisms of it, so I thought I'd give it its own thread.

Argument from Divine Hiddenness
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. I cannot see any god anywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.

This has been discredited.
1: Not all monotheistic religions claim that God is omnipresent.
Then where is god confined to?
2: There is a difference between omnipresence and pantheism.
Please define it. Any difference is negligible.
3: Firstly the fact that you can not see God does not mean he is not there. I am surrounded by billions of bacteria, I can't see them either. Secondly you can not be certain that you are not currently looking directly at God.
I should be able to see him. He's everywhere.
Argument from Empty Space
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. Nothing is in empty space.
4. Empty space exists.
.: God isn't everywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.
Rebuttals 1 and 2 still apply.
We *know* that empty space exists. Confining God to only matter is pantheism, which you don't ascribe to.
3: Empty space is full of stuff. So not really an argument at all.
By definition, it's full of nothing.
Argument from My Conception of God
1. If a god exists, then:
-It requires the worship of human beings.
-It has the power to make itself known.
2. Something has to be known to be recognized.
.: If a god exists, then it would have made itself known.
3. I do not know god.
.: God doesn't exist.

This is entirely arbitrary.
You assume that it requires the worship of human beings, you assume it has the power to make itself known. What are these assumptions based on? I can conceive of deities where neither of these claims hold. This fails to contradict the mainstream view of the Judeo-Christian God, it fails to contradict the deist God, it fails to contradict the gnostic God.
I can conceive of a flying spaghetti monster.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2010 11:49:36 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/7/2010 11:37:44 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:30:37 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/7/2010 10:27:11 PM, wjmelements wrote:
This is one that I came up with on the fly in another thread and some have had their own criticisms of it, so I thought I'd give it its own thread.

Argument from Divine Hiddenness
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. I cannot see any god anywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.

This has been discredited.
1: Not all monotheistic religions claim that God is omnipresent.
Then where is god confined to?

The Gnostic deity is not omnipresent, (at least not in the sense that you are referring to). Because he is spirit and has no association with matter.

2: There is a difference between omnipresence and pantheism.
Please define it. Any difference is negligible.

This starts of contradicting me, but there is enough of a scope to confuse the issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

3: Firstly the fact that you can not see God does not mean he is not there. I am surrounded by billions of bacteria, I can't see them either. Secondly you can not be certain that you are not currently looking directly at God.
I should be able to see him. He's everywhere.

Why should you able to see him? Why do you suppose you can not see him?

Argument from Empty Space
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. Nothing is in empty space.
4. Empty space exists.
.: God isn't everywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.
Rebuttals 1 and 2 still apply.
We *know* that empty space exists. Confining God to only matter is pantheism, which you don't ascribe to.
3: Empty space is full of stuff. So not really an argument at all.
By definition, it's full of nothing.

By no definition is 'empty' space nothing. It is composed of space, quantum particles etc.

Argument from My Conception of God
1. If a god exists, then:
-It requires the worship of human beings.
-It has the power to make itself known.
2. Something has to be known to be recognized.
.: If a god exists, then it would have made itself known.
3. I do not know god.
.: God doesn't exist.

This is entirely arbitrary.
You assume that it requires the worship of human beings, you assume it has the power to make itself known. What are these assumptions based on? I can conceive of deities where neither of these claims hold. This fails to contradict the mainstream view of the Judeo-Christian God, it fails to contradict the deist God, it fails to contradict the gnostic God.
I can conceive of a flying spaghetti monster.

Exactly.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/7/2010 11:53:05 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/7/2010 11:49:36 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:37:44 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:30:37 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/7/2010 10:27:11 PM, wjmelements wrote:
This is one that I came up with on the fly in another thread and some have had their own criticisms of it, so I thought I'd give it its own thread.

Argument from Divine Hiddenness
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. I cannot see any god anywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.

This has been discredited.
1: Not all monotheistic religions claim that God is omnipresent.
Then where is god confined to?

The Gnostic deity is not omnipresent, (at least not in the sense that you are referring to). Because he is spirit and has no association with matter.
Then he does not exist. All things that are not matter or energy do not exist.
2: There is a difference between omnipresence and pantheism.
Please define it. Any difference is negligible.

This starts of contradicting me, but there is enough of a scope to confuse the issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Omnipresence is the property of being present everywhere."
'Nuff said.
3: Firstly the fact that you can not see God does not mean he is not there. I am surrounded by billions of bacteria, I can't see them either. Secondly you can not be certain that you are not currently looking directly at God.
I should be able to see him. He's everywhere.
Why should you able to see him?
Because he is everywhere. Even in the photons that my eyes intercept.
Why do you suppose you can not see him?
Because he does not exist.
Argument from Empty Space
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. Nothing is in empty space.
4. Empty space exists.
.: God isn't everywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.
Rebuttals 1 and 2 still apply.
We *know* that empty space exists. Confining God to only matter is pantheism, which you don't ascribe to.
3: Empty space is full of stuff. So not really an argument at all.
By definition, it's full of nothing.

By no definition is 'empty' space nothing. It is composed of space, quantum particles etc.
Wherever quantum particles are, space isn't. The universe consists of an infinity of empty space.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 12:00:59 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/7/2010 11:53:05 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:49:36 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:37:44 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:30:37 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/7/2010 10:27:11 PM, wjmelements wrote:
This is one that I came up with on the fly in another thread and some have had their own criticisms of it, so I thought I'd give it its own thread.

Argument from Divine Hiddenness
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. I cannot see any god anywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.

This has been discredited.
1: Not all monotheistic religions claim that God is omnipresent.
Then where is god confined to?

The Gnostic deity is not omnipresent, (at least not in the sense that you are referring to). Because he is spirit and has no association with matter.
Then he does not exist. All things that are not matter or energy do not exist.

Prove it.

2: There is a difference between omnipresence and pantheism.
Please define it. Any difference is negligible.

This starts of contradicting me, but there is enough of a scope to confuse the issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Omnipresence is the property of being present everywhere."
'Nuff said.

Just read the first paragraph.

3: Firstly the fact that you can not see God does not mean he is not there. I am surrounded by billions of bacteria, I can't see them either. Secondly you can not be certain that you are not currently looking directly at God.
I should be able to see him. He's everywhere.
Why should you able to see him?
Because he is everywhere. Even in the photons that my eyes intercept.

Present and visible are not the same thing.

Why do you suppose you can not see him?
Because he does not exist.

Circular logic, invalid.

Argument from Empty Space
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. Nothing is in empty space.
4. Empty space exists.
.: God isn't everywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.
Rebuttals 1 and 2 still apply.
We *know* that empty space exists. Confining God to only matter is pantheism, which you don't ascribe to.
3: Empty space is full of stuff. So not really an argument at all.
By definition, it's full of nothing.

By no definition is 'empty' space nothing. It is composed of space, quantum particles etc.
Wherever quantum particles are, space isn't. The universe consists of an infinity of empty space.

Since when?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 12:04:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 12:00:59 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:53:05 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:49:36 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:37:44 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:30:37 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/7/2010 10:27:11 PM, wjmelements wrote:
This is one that I came up with on the fly in another thread and some have had their own criticisms of it, so I thought I'd give it its own thread.

Argument from Divine Hiddenness
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. I cannot see any god anywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.

This has been discredited.
1: Not all monotheistic religions claim that God is omnipresent.
Then where is god confined to?

The Gnostic deity is not omnipresent, (at least not in the sense that you are referring to). Because he is spirit and has no association with matter.
Then he does not exist. All things that are not matter or energy do not exist.
Prove it.
Matter is all things. Energy is the transformation of matter. Nuff said.
2: There is a difference between omnipresence and pantheism.
Please define it. Any difference is negligible.

This starts of contradicting me, but there is enough of a scope to confuse the issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Omnipresence is the property of being present everywhere."
'Nuff said.

Just read the first paragraph.
It then says that in Western theism it's less important to the doctrines themselves. Still omnipresent.
3: Firstly the fact that you can not see God does not mean he is not there. I am surrounded by billions of bacteria, I can't see them either. Secondly you can not be certain that you are not currently looking directly at God.
I should be able to see him. He's everywhere.
Why should you able to see him?
Because he is everywhere. Even in the photons that my eyes intercept.

Present and visible are not the same thing.
Presence in the photons = visibility.
Why do you suppose you can not see him?
Because he does not exist.
Circular logic, invalid.
You asked me why I didn't think I could see him and I told you.
Argument from Empty Space
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. Nothing is in empty space.
4. Empty space exists.
.: God isn't everywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.
Rebuttals 1 and 2 still apply.
We *know* that empty space exists. Confining God to only matter is pantheism, which you don't ascribe to.
3: Empty space is full of stuff. So not really an argument at all.
By definition, it's full of nothing.

By no definition is 'empty' space nothing. It is composed of space, quantum particles etc.
Wherever quantum particles are, space isn't. The universe consists of an infinity of empty space.
Since when?
Since space extends indefinitely.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 12:04:40 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 12:00:59 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:53:05 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:49:36 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:37:44 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:30:37 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/7/2010 10:27:11 PM, wjmelements wrote:
This is one that I came up with on the fly in another thread and some have had their own criticisms of it, so I thought I'd give it its own thread.

Argument from Divine Hiddenness
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. I cannot see any god anywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.

This has been discredited.
1: Not all monotheistic religions claim that God is omnipresent.
Then where is god confined to?

The Gnostic deity is not omnipresent, (at least not in the sense that you are referring to). Because he is spirit and has no association with matter.
Then he does not exist. All things that are not matter or energy do not exist.

Prove it.


The BOP is on you to prove soul stuff. Science provides unambigous inductive support to the thesis that all that exists is physical. It's on you to demonstrate that "spirit" can exist.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 12:11:48 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 12:04:22 AM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/8/2010 12:00:59 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:53:05 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:49:36 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:37:44 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:30:37 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/7/2010 10:27:11 PM, wjmelements wrote:
This is one that I came up with on the fly in another thread and some have had their own criticisms of it, so I thought I'd give it its own thread.

Argument from Divine Hiddenness
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. I cannot see any god anywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.

This has been discredited.
1: Not all monotheistic religions claim that God is omnipresent.
Then where is god confined to?

The Gnostic deity is not omnipresent, (at least not in the sense that you are referring to). Because he is spirit and has no association with matter.
Then he does not exist. All things that are not matter or energy do not exist.
Prove it.
Matter is all things. Energy is the transformation of matter. Nuff said.

You are the fellow who decided to make an unprovable assertion, the onus is upon you to disprove spirit. (Though this is a tangent and only works for one specific thing and my other arguments are still valid).

2: There is a difference between omnipresence and pantheism.
Please define it. Any difference is negligible.

This starts of contradicting me, but there is enough of a scope to confuse the issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Omnipresence is the property of being present everywhere."
'Nuff said.

Just read the first paragraph.
It then says that in Western theism it's less important to the doctrines themselves. Still omnipresent.

The whole paragraph, please be honest.

3: Firstly the fact that you can not see God does not mean he is not there. I am surrounded by billions of bacteria, I can't see them either. Secondly you can not be certain that you are not currently looking directly at God.
I should be able to see him. He's everywhere.
Why should you able to see him?
Because he is everywhere. Even in the photons that my eyes intercept.

Present and visible are not the same thing.
Presence in the photons = visibility.

Not a logical rebuttal.

Why do you suppose you can not see him?
Because he does not exist.
Circular logic, invalid.
You asked me why I didn't think I could see him and I told you.

You took the question out of context. I did not ask you why in your opinion you can not see God. I asked why do you suppose that what you are currently seeing is not God.

Argument from Empty Space
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. Nothing is in empty space.
4. Empty space exists.
.: God isn't everywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.
Rebuttals 1 and 2 still apply.
We *know* that empty space exists. Confining God to only matter is pantheism, which you don't ascribe to.
3: Empty space is full of stuff. So not really an argument at all.
By definition, it's full of nothing.

By no definition is 'empty' space nothing. It is composed of space, quantum particles etc.
Wherever quantum particles are, space isn't. The universe consists of an infinity of empty space.
Since when?
Since space extends indefinitely.

Since when?
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 12:15:55 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 12:04:40 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/8/2010 12:00:59 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:53:05 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:49:36 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:37:44 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:30:37 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/7/2010 10:27:11 PM, wjmelements wrote:
This is one that I came up with on the fly in another thread and some have had their own criticisms of it, so I thought I'd give it its own thread.

Argument from Divine Hiddenness
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. I cannot see any god anywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.

This has been discredited.
1: Not all monotheistic religions claim that God is omnipresent.
Then where is god confined to?

The Gnostic deity is not omnipresent, (at least not in the sense that you are referring to). Because he is spirit and has no association with matter.
Then he does not exist. All things that are not matter or energy do not exist.

Prove it.


The BOP is on you to prove soul stuff. Science provides unambigous inductive support to the thesis that all that exists is physical. It's on you to demonstrate that "spirit" can exist.

No it is not. I am not the person making the positive assertion. Wjm has presented a positive argument against the existence of God, it is meaningless to say a Cathar, or a bogomil. It does not disprove their God. A positive argument against the existence of spirit would. It is also impossible to construct.

This is why I concern myself with the fact that there is no evidence for God, instead of these easily refuted arguments against the existence of God.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
wjmelements
Posts: 8,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 12:20:08 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 12:11:48 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/8/2010 12:04:22 AM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/8/2010 12:00:59 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:53:05 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:49:36 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:37:44 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:30:37 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/7/2010 10:27:11 PM, wjmelements wrote:
This is one that I came up with on the fly in another thread and some have had their own criticisms of it, so I thought I'd give it its own thread.

Argument from Divine Hiddenness
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. I cannot see any god anywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.

This has been discredited.
1: Not all monotheistic religions claim that God is omnipresent.
Then where is god confined to?

The Gnostic deity is not omnipresent, (at least not in the sense that you are referring to). Because he is spirit and has no association with matter.
Then he does not exist. All things that are not matter or energy do not exist.
Prove it.
Matter is all things. Energy is the transformation of matter. Nuff said.
You are the fellow who decided to make an unprovable assertion, the onus is upon you to disprove spirit. (Though this is a tangent and only works for one specific thing and my other arguments are still valid).
The existence of spirits is unprovable and lacks proof. Matter is, by definition, everything.
2: There is a difference between omnipresence and pantheism.
Please define it. Any difference is negligible.

This starts of contradicting me, but there is enough of a scope to confuse the issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Omnipresence is the property of being present everywhere."
'Nuff said.

Just read the first paragraph.
It then says that in Western theism it's less important to the doctrines themselves. Still omnipresent.
The whole paragraph, please be honest.
It also says that Eastern Christians follow the definition aforestated. What else are you looking for? It's only got 3 or 4 sentences in it.
3: Firstly the fact that you can not see God does not mean he is not there. I am surrounded by billions of bacteria, I can't see them either. Secondly you can not be certain that you are not currently looking directly at God.
I should be able to see him. He's everywhere.
Why should you able to see him?
Because he is everywhere. Even in the photons that my eyes intercept.
Present and visible are not the same thing.
Presence in the photons = visibility.
Not a logical rebuttal.
Sure it is. We receive photons and that gives us sight. Of course god's presence in light would give us sight of him.
Why do you suppose you can not see him?
Because he does not exist.
Circular logic, invalid.
You asked me why I didn't think I could see him and I told you.
You took the question out of context. I did not ask you why in your opinion you can not see God. I asked why do you suppose that what you are currently seeing is not God.
Because it isn' god. It's a computer screen.
Argument from Empty Space
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. Nothing is in empty space.
4. Empty space exists.
.: God isn't everywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.
Rebuttals 1 and 2 still apply.
We *know* that empty space exists. Confining God to only matter is pantheism, which you don't ascribe to.
3: Empty space is full of stuff. So not really an argument at all.
By definition, it's full of nothing.
By no definition is 'empty' space nothing. It is composed of space, quantum particles etc.
Wherever quantum particles are, space isn't. The universe consists of an infinity of empty space.
Since when?
Since space extends indefinitely.
Since when?
Eternity.
in the blink of an eye you finally see the light
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 12:26:22 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 8/8/2010 12:20:08 AM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/8/2010 12:11:48 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/8/2010 12:04:22 AM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/8/2010 12:00:59 AM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:53:05 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:49:36 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:37:44 PM, wjmelements wrote:
At 8/7/2010 11:30:37 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:
At 8/7/2010 10:27:11 PM, wjmelements wrote:
This is one that I came up with on the fly in another thread and some have had their own criticisms of it, so I thought I'd give it its own thread.

Argument from Divine Hiddenness
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. I cannot see any god anywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.

This has been discredited.
1: Not all monotheistic religions claim that God is omnipresent.
Then where is god confined to?

The Gnostic deity is not omnipresent, (at least not in the sense that you are referring to). Because he is spirit and has no association with matter.
Then he does not exist. All things that are not matter or energy do not exist.
Prove it.
Matter is all things. Energy is the transformation of matter. Nuff said.
You are the fellow who decided to make an unprovable assertion, the onus is upon you to disprove spirit. (Though this is a tangent and only works for one specific thing and my other arguments are still valid).
The existence of spirits is unprovable and lacks proof. Matter is, by definition, everything.

The onus is not on me to find proof for spirit, the onus is on you to demonstrate how spirit can not exist.

2: There is a difference between omnipresence and pantheism.
Please define it. Any difference is negligible.

This starts of contradicting me, but there is enough of a scope to confuse the issue.
http://en.wikipedia.org...
"Omnipresence is the property of being present everywhere."
'Nuff said.

Just read the first paragraph.
It then says that in Western theism it's less important to the doctrines themselves. Still omnipresent.
The whole paragraph, please be honest.
It also says that Eastern Christians follow the definition aforestated. What else are you looking for? It's only got 3 or 4 sentences in it.

I'll just assume you to have conceded the point then.

3: Firstly the fact that you can not see God does not mean he is not there. I am surrounded by billions of bacteria, I can't see them either. Secondly you can not be certain that you are not currently looking directly at God.
I should be able to see him. He's everywhere.
Why should you able to see him?
Because he is everywhere. Even in the photons that my eyes intercept.
Present and visible are not the same thing.
Presence in the photons = visibility.
Not a logical rebuttal.
Sure it is. We receive photons and that gives us sight. Of course god's presence in light would give us sight of him.
Why do you suppose you can not see him?
Because he does not exist.
Circular logic, invalid.
You asked me why I didn't think I could see him and I told you.
You took the question out of context. I did not ask you why in your opinion you can not see God. I asked why do you suppose that what you are currently seeing is not God.
Because it isn' god. It's a computer screen.

Prove it.

Argument from Empty Space
1. If a god exists, then it is omnipresent.
2. To be omnipresent is to be everywhere.
3. Nothing is in empty space.
4. Empty space exists.
.: God isn't everywhere.
.: God doesn't exist.
Rebuttals 1 and 2 still apply.
We *know* that empty space exists. Confining God to only matter is pantheism, which you don't ascribe to.
3: Empty space is full of stuff. So not really an argument at all.
By definition, it's full of nothing.
By no definition is 'empty' space nothing. It is composed of space, quantum particles etc.
Wherever quantum particles are, space isn't. The universe consists of an infinity of empty space.
Since when?
Since space extends indefinitely.
Since when?
Eternity.

Scientific consensus is not on your side. (not that it has to be of course).
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Yvette
Posts: 859
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/8/2010 12:36:09 AM
Posted: 6 years ago
This is a really bad attempt at trying to understand how atheists think. Try harder.
In the middle of moving to Washington. 8D

"If God does not exist, then chocolate causing cancer is only true for the society that has evidence for that." --GodSands